The Sun. — London, England, 1864-02-24 00:00:00

IMTERI AL PARUMIENT HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening, The LORD CJIAIICELIOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time .—Northern Land Drainage and Improvement Companies—Aldborough Pier and Railway—Furness Gas and Water— Railway Pass engers Assurance Corporation, New Brighton Pier, Phoenix Gas, Belfast Central Railway, Drogheda Water, Herne Bay, Hampton, and Reculver Fishery, and Parsons town Portumna Bridge Railway. RECRUITING IN IRELAND. The Earl of CORK said he had been requested on the part of his noble relative (the Marquis of Clanricarde) to postpone the motion standing in his name for this evening respecting recruiting in Ireland for the North American army until Thursday; and on Friday he would ask the noble earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arbitrators in Captain Melville White's case were likely soon to give the decision in that matter ? PENAL. SERVITUDE. The Marquis of SALISBURY moved that an address be presented for returns of the number of convicts under sentence of penal servitude, confined in gaols other than Government prisons in 1862 and 1863, and also asked what steps had been taken to carry out the recommenda tions of the penal servitude commission. Lord GRA.NVILLE did not think it advisable to dis cuss the details of a bill then before the other House of Parliament. The whole question would soon be brought before them in a regular manner. Lord CARNARVON pointed out the inequality of the present system of punishment, and quoted from an official report a statement that 18 months' imprisonment was ac- ' tually a heavier sentence than three years' penal servitude. Combining these two classes of prisoners must be subver sive of all discipline. He also regretted that a strict police supervision for discharged convicts was not enforced. It was absolutely essential, and, if not exercised by the police, would be carried on by private societies. He hoped the Government would reconsider this question. Lord WODEH.OUSE did not believe it would be im possible to preserve discipline among numbers of prisoners without the system of remission of sentences. The super vision of liberated convicts, as practised in the colonies, wa s quite impossible in England. The better plan would be to pass shorter sentences. Let the prisoner continue under punishment for the whole term and then be dis charged a free man. ` Lord GREY approved the principle of remitting part of the sentence as an incentive to good conduct. The opposite system of fixed terms had been condemned by all expe rience. But he thought convicts were at present liberated too soon, and under conditions that made their relapse into crime almost inevitable. The returns were ordered; and their lordships adjourned at 20 minutes to seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening, The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock, THE SUEZ CANAL, &c, Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that on Thursday next he would ask the Government to produce the correspondence with. Sir Henry Bulwer, relative to the Suez Canal, and also for other papers in connection with the communication with the Pasha of Egypt. SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS—IRELAND. Mr. GREGORY gave notice that he would call the at ten tion of the house to the subject of the subsidising of scien tific institutions in Ireland. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT Mr. B. JOHNSTON gave notice that he would move that in the opinion of the house the conduct of the Go vernment in reference to foreign affairs was calculated to lower the country in the estimation of foreign powers. VACCINATING SHEEP. In reply to Sir J. C. JERYOISE, Mr. LOWE said that the report, relative to the experi ments that were being made as to the vaccination of sheep, would be laid before Parliament before Easter. PASSAGE OF TOBACCO THROUGH THE BLOCKADE IN AMERICA. _ _ Sir R. CLIFTON asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was true that her Majesty's Government have, on the application of the French Government, consented that the French Go vernment should pass a quantity of tobacco through the blockade with the approval of the Washington Govern ment ; and whether her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to make any similar application for the passing of cotton for the benefit of the distressed opera tives of Lancashire. Mr. LA.YARD explained that at the time of the break ing out of the war there was a quantity of tobacco belong ing to Austria and France at Richmond, and arrangements were made for its transmission to these countries. The sub ject of cotton was entirely a different question. EXTENSION OF THE COUNTY FRANCHISE. Mr. LOCKE KING moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend the franchise in the counties in England and Wales. He said that the object of the bill was to introduce into the constituency of the country a class that, from their intelligence and numbers, were entitled to have a voice in the election of their representatives in Parliament. He con tended that the increase in population justified a corre sponding extension in the franchise, and he drew the attention of the house to the fact that there had been a decrease in the number of county electors within the last few years, they having dwindled from 622,000 to 519,000, an amount which in no way represented the population in the rural districts, the fact being that not one-fourth of that population had got a voice. The lion. member then entered into a history of the different efforts which had been made relative to this subject in Parliament, but his remarks were listened to with great indifference by the house, which was numerously attended. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. _ _ Sir G. GREY said that the Governmont did not intend to oppose the first reading of the bill, and would therefore allow the debate on the merits of the measure to stand over until the second reading. PUBLIC EXECUTIONS. Mr. HIBBERT drew the attention of the house to the demoralising effects of public executions, and moved for the production of certain papers in reference to the same. The hon. memb3r cited the evidence given before a commission appointed on the motion of the Bishop of Oxford to inquire into the subject, and also the testimony of a com petent person who had directed their attention to the matter, to show that the tendency of public executions was, per se, demoralising. According to the statements of these parties, women with children in their arms were present at these executions, ribaldry, drunkenness, and blasphemy characterised the spectators, and secnes of a most revolt ing character were enacted. Amongst the evidence which he adduced was that of the sheriffs of different coun ties, and he alluded to the graphic description of Mr. Charles Dickens in a letter to the Times on the occasion of the execution of the Mannings. He next referred to the practice which prevailed in Prussia and parts of America, of having executions in private, which was found to act beneficially, and that practice had been extended advantage ously to Australia. Mr HADFIELD.said that capital punishments had failed in deterring persons from the commission of crime, and referred to criminal statutes to show that neither in the case of forgery, which was once visited with capital punishment, or in regard to the crime of murder, capital punishment was attended with beneficial effects. He said that an execution was an attractive spectacle in the same way as a prize fight, and he believed that if a battle took place within a hundred yards of where they were assembled it would soon clear the house. (Laughter.) He deprecated in tho strongest terms the principle of capital punishment. Sir G. GREY defended the execution of tlit,3 five pirates, which he considered was calculated to lead to good results. lielhoped the house would not be induced to accede to Mr. Hib here s views ; he was not prepared to consent to any alteration of the law. Alderman SIDNEY complained of the recent execution, i ns isting that the culprits should have been sent to the out ports. Lord H. LENNOX, While he agreed with Sir G. Grey, described and animad ;lifted upon certain disgraceful scenes at the late execution. After a short discussion, the motion was withdrawn. THE STEAM RAMS IN THE MERSEY. Mr. S. FITZGERAL D rose to move an address for copies of all correspondence between the var i ous depart ments of her Majesty's Government , or em cees i n her Ma • jesty's service, and Messrs. Laird Brothers, relating to the two iron-clad vessels, the El Toussor? and Ei Monassia, building by that firm, and seized by order of her Majesty's Government ; and of any papers or correspondence that had passed between her Majesty's Government and the Govern ment of the United States, or their representative, Mr. Adams, relating to the said vessels. The hon. gentleman said ho was not insensible to the delicacy of the task he ha undertaken. Some days ago, in calling attention to the conduct of Americanicruisers, he had expressed his desire to let nothing fall from him which was calculated in the slightest degree to aggravate that feeling of irritation which was so prevalent in the country ; and in the seine spirit he would now call the attention of the house only to that por tiuu of these transaction which concerned the conduct of her Majesty's Government. Ile should scrupulously avoid alluding, except perhaps incidentally, even to the correspon dence addressed to the Minister of the United States in this country, but which he, in the exercise of the discretion and good sense which distinguished him, declined to present to our Government He was aware that the hon. and learned gentleman might possibly meet the present motion by the objection that it had reference to matters which were s till the subject of judicial investigation. ( II:ar,) Th ere was sometimes great force in such an objection, but not in a case l;ke the present. If we were going to discuss the question whether these vessels were rightly seized or not, there wculd be considerable force in the objection ; but the object of the present motion was to obtain papers which would show whether, before the seizure took place, the conduct of the Government was consistent with the law. It would be necer,eary for him to refer briefly to the circumstances con nected with the seizure of the steam rams. From the papers laid before Congress it appeared that Mr. Adams, having heard that vessels of a formidable character were building at Birkenhead, addressed a communication to Earl Russell on the 11th of last July, enclosing depositions which, in his (Mr. Adams's) opinion, proved that the vess_;le in question were intended for the Confederate States. Mr. Adams urged the case upon the notice of the noble earl in the most forcible terms, for he described the building of these rams as being regarded by the Government and the people of the United States as tantamount to a participation in the war by the people of Great Britain, to such a degree as could not fail, unless her Majesty's Government seized the ves sels, to endanger the preservation of peace between the two countries. (Hear.) This communication was followed by others enclosing supplemental depositions, and it appeared that, from the 11th July to Ist Sept., the case was receiving the consideration of the law officers of the Crown and the careful attention of her Majesty's Government, The result was communicated to Mr. Adams in a despatch dated Sept. 1, 1863, in which Lord Russell said—" Her Majesty's Government are advised that the information contained in the depositions is in a great measure mere hearsay evi dence, and generally it is not such as to show the intent or purpose necessary to make the building or fitting out of these vessels illegal under the Foreign Enlistment Act." After this the house would scarcely be prepared to hear 1 1 that on the 4th September, only three days afterward-, Earl Russell directed the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to write to order the detention of the vessels. Now, the only additional information received by the noble lord in the interim consisted of some depositions which, as ap peared from a despatch addressed to Mr. Seward on Sept. 3, even Mr. Adams himself considered to be of no great weight. The first question he wished to ask the hon. and learned gentleman was, how it happened that, not having any evi dence to seize those vessels, they yet proceeded to them ; and he further wished to have it shown upon what autho rity they detained the rams during the whole month of Sep tember, without proceeding to any legal investigation. What was the first announcement which was made to Messrs. Laird with respect to those rams ? It was in a letter dated the 9th of September, which announced to them that the rams would not be permitted to leave the Mersey until satisfactory evidence was given as to their destination. (Hear, hear.) Was it the principle of the English law to enforce a highly penal statute and not proceed, according to the requirements of that statute, to put those implicated upon their trial, and put the whole case in a train of legal investigation ? Or was the executive to say to Messrs. Laird, " We will take care that your vessels shall not leave the Mersey until you can prove you are engaged in an in nocent transaction, or until some roving commission we have shall return to show they have no evidence to offer on the subject" ? (Opposition cheers.) The noble lord the Foreign Secretary stated in another place that he directed those vessels to be seized on the 3d of September, but it somehow curiously happened that on that day the Under- Secretary for Foreign Affairs wrote a friendly note to Messrs. Laird, asking them to furnish the Government with infor mation, with as little delay as possible, on whose account and for what destination they were building the rams. At the very time the Government wrote this letter to Messrs. Laird, they were directing a prosecution—(Opposition cheers)—and were asking them to furnish information which might be used against them. (Hear, hear.) Was that law ? Her Majesty's Government, although they were informed those rams were being built for Mr. Gravet, of Paris,for the Pasha of Egypt,yet within one week after the letter to Messrs Laird, they made proposals, through the Chief Constructor of the navy, for the sale to them of the rams ; but Messrs. Laird called upon Mr. Read to produce his authority. There was one remarkable letter of Lord Russell's of September 11, 1863, which conclusively proved that the noble lord per sisted in his intention of detaining the rams long after he was convinced that the story told by M. Gravet was correct. The letter of Mr. Colquhoun to the Foreign-office showed satisfactorily that M. Gravet was the owner of the rams ; and the only ground of doubt was, that Ismael Pasha re fused to carry out the contract made by the late Pasha. (Hear, hear.) But the real question remained, what was it that led to such a sudden change of opinion on the part of Lord Russell ? This was best answered by the despatch from Mr. Adams to the noble lord. Mr. Adams, writing to Mr. Seward, informs him that, in consequence of the pres sure of his note of the 3d September to Lord Russell, the decision of the British Government not to proceed to seize the rams was subjected to reconsideration. (Hear, hear.) The simple fact was that Mr. Adams had used language so forcible as to be almost menacing, and even his despatches, though couched in temperate language, left no doubt that if the rams were allowed to leave the Mersey and prey upon American commerce it would inevitably lead to war, (Hear, hear, from Mr. Dunlop.) He did not know the meaning of the cheer of the hon. member for Greenock, but he did not think that was the feeling generally of the house nor of the country. There was no man who deprecated any hostility between this country and the United States more than him self. He believed it would be a most fatal and unnatural war for both; but if he was to be told that, rather than run the risk of war, the Government of this country were to seize the property of British subjects, he could never ap prove the conduct of such a Government. What he asked was, that the Government should give them those papers which would enable the public to judge of the conduct of the Government, and whether they strained or overstepped the law. The objection raised was, that the matters to which the papers relate were still undergoing judicial investigation. But the papers to which he limited his demand could have no reference to the legal question of the detention and seizure of the rams. If such a plea were entertained, judging from the case of the Alex andra, the whole year might elapse before the judicial in vestigation concluded. The only corr espondence he asked for was what passed between the Government and Messrs. Laird. All the letters were in the possession of Messrs. Laird, and the Government had only to send copies to the journals and they would appear in every paper to-morrow morning. The other correspondence which he asked for was that which passed between the Government and the representative of the American Government, In conclusion, he hoped the house would enforce the production of those papers, and then they would see whether the Government had behaved in a manner worthy of a British Government. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HORSFALL seconded the motion. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My hon. friend says the objection to the present motion is—that the papers he requires are the subject of judicial investigation, and he thinks he evades the question by limiting his inquiry to the papers relating solely to the seizure of the vessels, which he supposes will enable the house to judge whether or not the Government have done their duty. But by this limitation my hon. friend partly admits that the house may well hesi tate to ask for all the papers in the hands of the Government, for this would be to interfere directly with the administra tion of justice in this case—(hear, hear)—and make the House of Commons instrumental in precipitating the 0- jecs of private parties in litigation who may find it conve nient to get behind the scenes, and when possessed of the information, seek to get a reversal of the decisions of the Government in this house or elsewhere. Such a thing was never heard of as that, while a case was waiting for trial, the litigant party was to be given up all the information as to the course which was taken. I can not see the object of my hon, friend in limiting his de mand to two classes of papers. Still, if he desires it, the Government are perfectly willing to produce what passed between Mr. Adams and the Foreign Office ; although if these papers are separated from the other class it not enable the House of Commons to judge correctly as to the course of the Government. And what is that other class ? Why, the correspondence which has passed between the Government and the Messrs. Laird, unaccompanied by those other documents, which showed the grounds on which the Government acted, notwithstanding the professions of candour and openness solemnly made in that correspon dence. The production of this correspondence alone would not enable the house to know why the Government were not satisfied with the professions of these gentlemen, and why in the end they deemed it their duty to suspend the sailing of these vessels. But my hon. friend in the absence of all materials, would persuade the house that Earl Russell and the Government had acted upon grounds not warranted by law, and entirely under the influence of representations made by Mr. Adams. I will follow my hon. friend, as far as I can, in his statement; and, first of all, I will refer to the period of the 11th of July, when Mr, Adams urged upon the Government the importance of fulfilling their pro fessions of neutrality by preventing the departure of the vessels from the ports of the United Kingdom. Well, can any one blame Mr. Adams for urging the matter in the most pressing and serious manner upon the attention of the Government. (Hear.) But are we to,conclude that because a matter of the kind was pressingly urged upon the Go vernment by the Minister of a foreign State, that for that reason the Government may overstep the bounds of mode ration and avoid doing its duty. (Loud cries of Hear.) I should like to know what should have been our language if the Congress had said to the Government of the United States, when we applied to them to enforce their Foreign Enlistment Act, " Don't enforce this law, because 'tis Great Britain that asks you." Would such a course be consistent either with dignity or honesty ? (Cheers.) Un doubtedly it is the right of the foreign State which feels itself injured by a proceeding of this description, to call upon a friendly Power to enforce its law, and observe its professions of neutrality. What was the fact? Here are ships of a formid a bl e c h aracter, w hi c h , even accor di ng to the view taken in the Court of Exchequer by the judges opposed to the course taken by the Government, if they were intended to operate against the Federal Government, them most ex t ens i ve m i sc hi e f . Th en w ere capable of doi ng the nature and chara c t er o f t h ese ships are known, and the on ly question is for whom are they intended. Mr. Adams believed that they were intended for the Confederate States. What did the Government do? They did that which they always said they would do—namely, require such evidence es would justify them to act upon. Well, upon the whole, it did not appear that there was sufficient evidence to enable them to act ; and that was announced upon the let of Sep tember, by Earl Russell, to Mr. Adams. But it is said that Mr. Adams pointedly observed, before the fact, that it was upon the 4th of September the order was given to detain the vessels. Now, the fact is, as has been already stated, not onl3 was the order the result of the resolution of the Go vernment —come to subsequently to the letter to Mr. Adams of the Ist of September, but it was made previous to the re ceipt of Mr. Adams's letter of the 4th of September, and had been actually communicated to the President of the United States in the interval. (Cheers.) And had any informa tion reached Earl Russell in the interval between the Ist and the 4th September ? That is exactly one of the things we do not intend to tell the hon. gentleman, although he may be quite sure the Government have good grounds for what they did, and that they will give at the proper time that informa tion which reached them in the course of the inquiry which determined the action which they took. (Cheers.) Well, my hon. friend asks, Why detain the ships without seizing them ? I answer boldly, the Government did so upon their own responsibility. The inquiries which they were prosecuting were imperfect, still they went far enough to have strong reasons for believing that these ships were intended for an illegal purpose. The Govern ment did not seize the ships, but they took it upon their own responsibility to say that the law shall not be violated until the inquiry has been brought to a conclusion. Of course the ordinary law cannot be followed in case of the the seizure of a vessel, and therefore it was that the Go vernment were compelled to act upon their own responsibi lity and upon the determination that what took place with respect to the Alabama should not be again repeated. (Hear, and cheers.) There is all the distinction in the world between detaining a ship upon the responsibility of the Government and seizing it. In point of fact, this deten tion was nothing more nor less than an announcement to the builders that the ships were under the surveillance of the Government. It was upon the 9th of Sept. that Mr. Hamilton wrote to the Messrs. Laird that the ships would not be permitted to leave the Mersey, and on the same date a note was written to them making inquiry who was the owner of the ships. Messrs. Laird, in reply, mentioned the name of the French gentleman to whom reference has been made. The hon. and learned gentleman then further traced the course of the proceedings and the correspondence, and referred to Earl Russell's declaration to the American Go vernment that her Majesty's Government were satisfied that the vessels were not intended for the Egyptian Govern ment. The next step was the sudden announcement of the Government to Mr. Adams of the seizure of the ships. Well, I shall abstain from explaining all the facts which satisfied the Government of the illegal destination of the ships—but as my hon. friend has quoted from the papers laid before Congress, I may be permitted to refer to papers laid before another congress—to the report of the secretary to the Confederate Navy department. The hon and learned gentleman read an extract from this report, which was to the effect that in accordance with the orders of the Pre sident of the Confederate States, agents had been de spatched to England and France to enter into contracts for the building of eight iron-plated vessels, which were to be provided with rams—that three of them had been com pleted, but that they were 'detained in the Mersey in consequence of the Government of England having sta tioned ships of war at the mouth of the river in order to prevent a breach of their neutrality laws. (The reading of this despatch was received with loud cheers on the Minos terial benches.) Well, then, as between this country and the Confeder ate Government we have information of a cha racter perfectly unquestionable—(cheers)—and therefore I hope that the house will not believe that the Government merely stumbled upon a mode of preventing an infraction of the law. I confess it would be much more satisfactory to us if the legal proceedings were more advanced than they are; but the house will admit that we must take pains to proceed to trial under circumstances most favourable for the Crown. It is impossible, however, that the case of the Government can now be brought before the house ; and I can only say that the Government have acted throughout in a serious sense of their duty to themselves, to her Ma jesty, and to her allies throughout the world. (Hear.) On the other hand, her Majesty's Government have continued to act as they always have acted, on the principle that no seizure of this kind ought to be made except on evidence satisfactory to their minds of the existence of an actual vio lation of the law, They have acted upon such evidence in this case. The only question that is raised by my hon. friend is really this, whether they were or were not justified in taking upon themselves to say that, pending an inquiry which might result in obtaining such evidence, and which, in their judgment, did so result, they did not permit ships to be removed as to which the inquiry was incomplete, and before they had the means of knowing whether evidence proving the innocence or guilt of those vessels would be forthcoming or not. The house will say whether, in that respect her Majesty's Government did or did not exceed their duty. For my own part I think they would be most grossly wanting in their duty if after the evidence in the case of the Alabama—(hear, hear)—whilst the inquiry was pending, they had not taken upon themselves the responsibility of saying that they would not permit justice to be evaded until they could judge whether the ships should be seized or not ; and the Government confidently relies upon the care • ful and fair judgment of the country, knowing that the country must come to the conclusion that they have been actuated by no motive whatever in taking such steps, ex cept that of vindicating the law, and doing that to other countries which they would expect other countries to do by them. (Cheers.) Mr. HORSFALL contended that as there was nothing in the Foreign Enlistment Act that forbade the building of ships of war in this country, it would be a fatal policy and oppressive to our commercial interests not to allow such vessels to be built here. Lord R. CECIL said that although the Attorney-Gene ral argued that the house had no right to inquire into any matter under judicial investigation, in a case of this nature the house had a right to satisfy itself that the Government were acting from legitimate motives. In this case the Attorney-General had acknowledged that they had broken the law. This had been in deference to a foreign Govern ment; yet that house was not to interfere. Mr. W. FORST E R remarked that some of the quest;ons raised in the debate should have been made the subject of a specific motion that would test the opinion of the house. The Government alleged that they had obtained informa tion as to the destination of these rams, had taken upon themselves the responsibility of acting as they had done, and the question raised should have in view to test the pro priety of that act. Sir H. CAIRNS wished to put before the house the exact question on which they were called upon to vote. He subscribed heartily to what the Attorney-General had said as to the inadvisability of producing papers which would affect pending legal proceedings, and if he thought the papers now moved for would have such a result he should be the last person to support the motion. The papers moved for were of two classes; first, the de spatches between this Government and those who repre sent the Government of the United States with regard to these ships ; and secondly, the correspondence between her Majesty's Government and the firm who are the builders or these vessels. It was material that he should state what were the purposes to be served by the production of those papers. With regard to the first class, he understood that the object in view was not to raise any question about the Foreign Enlistment Act, not to raise any question as to the merits or demerits of any person under that Act, but to as certain what are the demands in point of international law made by the United States on the Government of this country in respect of these ships, and what has been the answer in point of international law given by our Minister to such demands. (Opposition cheers.) He could conceive no question of such vital importance as this, and he believed there was no question at the present day on which the House of Commons had less information. (Opposition cheers.) Had Mr. Seward said it was an infringement of international law to allow armed ships to leave this country, or had he said that to allow ships not armed, but intended to be armed and equipped at a subsequent period, to go out from our ports, was a breach of international law ? On March 22 Earl Russell wrote a despatch to the American Minister, wherein he said he wished the United States Go vernment to understand that he considered the cases of the Alabama and the Oreto to be a scandal. What did the noble earl mean by that ? Did he mean, that there being a law authorising the seizure of those vessels, it was a scandal that it had not been put in force ; or did he mean to say it was a scandal that there existed no law authorising their seizure? If the first were his reason, why were not the persons concerned in building the Alabama, who were per fectly well known, indicted for a misdemeanour ? As re gards the Oreto, that ship was mentioned in the House last year, and the Attorney-General said : " In order to show our good faith to the American Government, we strained a point and seized the Oreto at Nassau." The hon. and learned gentleman had strained more than one point. (Laughter.) Well, the Oreto was tried at Nassau, and acquitted ; and she must therefore be considered free from any infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Why then did the noble earl consider the case of the Oreto to be a scandal ? Now for the other branch of the dilemma. If it were a scandal that we had not better laws to deal with the Alabama and the Oreto, why did not her Majesty's Government propose some alto ration in the law? (Hear, hear.) Having read several ex tracts from statements made on this subject by the noble lord at the head of the Government, the hon. gentleman proceeded to remark that the noble lord the Foreign Secre tary did not suppose that he was prejudicing the case against the owners and builders of those rams by going down to Scotland and stating that they were intended for the Con federate Government. The Attorney-General and the Pre sident of Board of Trade, following suit, also explained to their constituents that there could be no doubt of the desti nation of those rams. The case in question amounted to a misdemeanour ; but supposing it was a case of life, and that a person was awaiting trial on a Government prosecution for high treason, and that the first law officer of the Crown and Secretary of State, and another Minister, were to ad dress popular assemblies, and tell them not to mind the con struction of the law, but that it was as certain as that the sun shone the man was guilty, what would be thought of such a proceeding ? He would now proceed to show why he thought the papers between the Government and the Messrs, Laird should be produced. He spoke with the full consciousness of the gravity of his words when he charged the Government with having done, and now doing, that which was illegal and unconstitutional, without justifica tion, without law, and without excuse. (Opposition cheers.) On the 31st of August, in answer to a memorial from a member of the Peace Society to tho Foreign Secretary, asking him to detain the rams, the noble lord stated that, in order to justify the Government in adopting such a course, it was necessary they should be furnished with such facts and evidence as would be sufficient in a court of law, that the rams in question were intended to carry on hostilities against the Government of the Federal States, but that the memorial did not point to any such proof. Again, on the Ist September, the same noble lord, writing to Mr. Adams, informed him that Government had received information that the rams were being built for Frenchmen; and, under these circumstances, and having regard to the insufficiency of the depositions to prove an infraction of the law, they, the Government, had resolved not to interfere in any way with those vessels. (Hear, hear.) It appeared, however, that from the Ist to the 3d of September facts had come to the knowledge of the Government which entirely changed their intentions, and made them resolve upon tak ing proceedings against the rams. But if the Government had resolved, upon the 3d of September, upon detaining the rams, was it just and proper to write to the Messrs. Laird to furnish them with information about the ownership of the rams ? Messrs. Laird, not suspecting anything, replied to the Government that they had obtained the necessary pet mission to declare the ownership. He left it to the house to reconcile the two proceedings—the resolving to seize the rams and the writing to Messrs. Laird for information. He demanded to know upon what authority tho Government detained those rams; for they had not vet been told. The Attorney-General had not told them there was law or con stitutional practice for it ; but, that they had violated the law in order to vindicate the law. (Cheers.) What was done in the case of personal liberty ? The party was arrested and taken before a magistrate, who had the power of remanding until evidence could be adduced. That was a strictly legal proceeding. There was an important distinction between detaining and seizing a vessel. The moment a vessel was seized the builder or owner could, without delay, force the Government to trial, whereas in the case of detaining a vessel the owner was without remedy. If a right were claimed by the Government to detain for a month, the same right could be claimed for a year, and where was the line to be drawn ? The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to the demand for compensation which had been threatened by America, on account of the depreda tions of the Alabama, and asked what answer could Government have to that demand if their detention of these rams was justifiable. (Opposition cheers.) What became of their defence that the English law did not enable them to detain the Alabama ? In the next place, he pointed with bitterness to the tardiness of the proceedings of the Govern. ment. A quarter of a million was at stake, the interest upon which was not less than £2,000 a month ; and yet, between Oct. 9 and Feb. 8, no information was filed in the Court of Exchequer. Then, after the Government had laid an em bargo upon these vessels, they actually sent down an officer of the Admiralty to deal with the owners for their sale. Was that the learned Attorney-General's idea of equity? (Cheers.) But the climax was, that February having come, and it being no longer possible to delay the information, the Government wrote to the builders to say that it might be necessary to send a commission abroad for the purpose Of collecting evidence. They had not received many papers this session, but he trusted the house would insist upon hav ing those now asked for. (Loud Opposition cheers.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the hon. and learned gentleman being aware that much of the information asked for would be produced, might have spared the house a great deal of his argument. (Hear, hear.) At the same time, the hon. and learned gentlemen having given an opinion as the legal adviser of the Messrs. Laird—(Sir H. Cairns : Never I) (Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) NV ell, the hon. and learned gentleman appeared in the case of the Alexandra, and no doubt a portion of his address upon that occasion was a rehearsal of that which he intended to deliver in this house. However, the distinction between the correspondence was plain. One portion of it was ad missible in a court of justice, the other was not. If the house should think that the Government had unfairly insti tuted this prosecution, they cught to be no longer entrusted with such powers; but if they were to conduct it, let them be permitted to do so like otter Government prosecutions. There never was an instance :n which the Government was called upon by the House of Commons to produce a portion of its evidence before the pericd of trial. (Hear, hear.) The Government had been charged with pusillanimity, but it seemed to him that no duty more vitally affected the hon our of the country than the maintenance of its neutrality. (Hear, hear.) So long ago as 1793 England insisted most emphatically against America that she should not supply France with vessels of war; aid at our instance Washing ton detained certain ships. Indeed, whatever might be our grievances against America, we had no complaint against her on the ground of not enforciag her Foreign Enlistment Act. He was bound to say the information volunteered by Messrs. Laird—for they were nut asked—was not satisfac tory to the Government. .They endeavoured to ascertain whether it was true that these vessels were sold to a gen tleman of the name of Gravet, end said if that were so, " Well, sell the vessels at once." (Hear, hear.) Of course the Government entertained the idea that the vessels were intended for the Confederate States, or they would have been guilty of most unjustifiable conduct in what they did. Had any gentleman on the other side any doubt about it ? (Hear, hear.) Of course the Government must prove their case, but he was sure the house would not desire him to state what that case w,ts, (Hear, hear.) The proofs had been fairly considered, and would he believed be sufficient, but, on that point a jury would do justice between Crown and sub ject, In the case of the Alabama the opinion of the law offi.- cers of the Crown was given just before the vessel had got away by stratagem, and an that question he would say that in dealing with a difficulty for which no precedents were found in the books, the Attorney-General and himself had endeavoured as far as possible to follow the lights of the highest authorities in England and America, whose deci sions had commanded the highest respect; and while he would not say they were always right, he would say they had kept a straight path, without being influenced by sympathy with the weak or by fear of the strong. They had never advised, and never would advise, her Majesty's Government to submit to indignity, but they had thought it just to act with America as they would expect America to act with this country if the positions of the two Powers were reversed. They had endeavoured to do as they would be done by, and he ventured to say that in that course they had best consulted the honour and interests of this country. (Ministerial cheers.) Mr, IV ALP OLE paid a high tribute to the speech of Sir Hugh Cairns, and proceeded to criticise the speeches of the law officers of the Crown. He entirely concurred with them in saying that people who would be neutrals ought to act in the same way as they wmld expect neutrals to act when they were belligerents ; but he contended it was fallacious to confound the obligations of our municipal law with the obligations of international law. (Opposition cheers.) The greatest principle of all was that neutrals were deprived of no rights, when other countries chose to go to war, which they possessed in the ordinary course of business before. With great deference to the law officers of the Crown, he preferred the view of international law on the subject taken by Earl Russell to that taken by them, and said that the builders of ships had dcne no more than others had done in sending guns, or English manufacturers in sending their goods; and when he found the other side echoing to the roof the observations made by the Solicitor-General, that this country would do what they would have others do to them, his answer was that if people send articles of war abroad they do no more wrong in building ships, which may be turned to warlike purposes hereafter, than they do in sending goods or ammunition, or attempting to break the blockade. (Cheers.) Mr. T. BARING said that as the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down had appealed to the merchants to support the opinion which he had propounded, he (Mr. T. Baring), as a humble member of that community, could not but protest against the opinion of his right hon. friend— (" Hear, hear," from the supporters of the Government) — that by sanctioning measures which would lead to arming privateers and war vessels in neutral ports, to take part in war between belligerents they would benefit the commerce of the country. (Hear.) What community would suffer more than the mercantile community of this country if that system were supported and that principle were adopted ? They were not, however, interested in the question only as merch ants. They were interested in the maintenance of the principle which we had propounded 3urselvos when engaged in war, and which had been adopted by Mr. Jefferson at our recommendation, and had been carried into effect as late as the Crimean war. If we broke through it now, it would be maintained as a principle to our injury hereafter. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend had said that neutrals were authorised to build, but they were not allowed to equip. (Hear, hear, from Mr, Walpole.) But did his right hon. friend mean to say that these vessels, armed with rams, were mere.y innocent commercial vessels, to be used for commercial turposes, and that they would be mis used if adopted for be ligerent purposes. (Hear, hear.) Did he believe that they were not intended for the Confede rates? (Hear, hear.; When he heard gentlemen on his side the house taunting the Government and endeavouring to precipitate the country into war, he, as a humble mem ber of the mercantile community, in identifying himself with the blessings cy' peace, thought he was not only urging his own interests, bit the interest also of the country and of humanity. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, the hon. mem ber thanked Earl Rissell and the law officers of the Crown for the course which had been taken in regard to the iron rams, and expresbec his regret that similar decided mea sures had not been adopted in regard to the Alabama (Hear.) The house adjourned at 12 o'clock. After a few worclaia reply to Mr. FITZGERALD, the House divided. Sir G. GREY preciously stated that it was to be distinctly understood that the negative applied only to the first papers mentioned in the motion, and that the latter would be granted. For the motion Against it .. slajoriti The motion was consequently lost. The announcement of the number was reeived with loud cheers. COPYRIGHT. _ _ Mr. BLACK obtaited leave to introduce a bill for the consolidation of the acts relating to copyright in works of literature and the fine arts. INSANE PRISONERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This bill, as &monied, was considered. Mr. HUNT took tie opportunity of making an expla nation in reference t 4 a statement which he had made when the bill was incommittee, respecting the opinion of Dr. Forbes Winslow es to the insanity of George Victor Townley. His statement was to the effect that Dr. Wins low's opinion was btsed on Townley's perverted moral sense, but the doctor has since written to him to say that his opinion was really founded upon the prisoner's per- THE Still, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24. 1864. verted moral obliquity, in conjunction with great aberra tion of intellect. There was not any very great difference between the two statements, but he thought it right to make the explanation. WAREHOUSING OF BRITISH SPIRITS BILL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted on Monday. The bills for which leave had been obtained were read a first time. Disgraceful Scene at the Dublin Rotundo, An "aggregate meeting of the citizens of Dublin" was convened for Monday evening, in the Round Room of the Rotondo, to protest against the vote of the corporation granting a site in College-green for the statue of the late Prince Consort, to " testify" their "indignation and shame" at that conduct, and to " let those who thought the people of Ireland shared in the base ingratitude displayed on Monday last towards Henry Grattan hear the people's solemn declaration." There must have been be. tween 4,000 and 5,000 persons present. Long before 8 o'clock—the time announced for the chair to be taken—the body of the room was crammed with an assembly scarcely ever paralleled for the dirty, disorderly, and disreputable elements of which it was composed. A sea of upturned faces, grimy with the duet of the workshop or black with the accumulation of several days' unwashed filth, surmounted by locks unkempt and unshorn, or the worst of bad hats, swayed hither and thither like the surges of an angry sea, and emitting in hoarse roars sounds of applause or disapprobation as the names of their partisans or opponents were shouted. Amongst those on the platform were The O'Donoghue, M.P., Alderman Tarpey, Alderman Plunkett, Mr. Egan, T.C., Mr. Whelan, T.C., Mr. Lombard, J.P., Mr. A. M. Sullivan, Morning News; Mr. Gill, 7ipperary Advocate; Mr. Ryan, grocer; and a number of Roman Catholic clergymen. At a quarter-past eight, amid a seene of confusion such as we have seldom witnessed, Mr. Gill, of the Tipperary Advocate, rose and moved Mr. James Crotty to the chair. The Chairman rose to address the meeting, but the conduct of the reeking brutal ruffians who com posed the audience in front of the platform pre vented a single word from being heard at the repor ters' table. He was understood to introduce The O'Donoghue, M.P., who rose amid a scene of noise and confusion, mingled with applause, that baffled description. When partial order had been restored he said—Mr. Chairman, you can easily suppose that if I did not take a very deep interest in this movement I would not have come from Kerry to be here this evening, (Loud applause.) I never saw, and I have attended many meetings in this room, so glorious or magnificent a meeting as the present. (Hear.) There is Jne appeal I would make to this meeting, and that is to support the authority of the chair—(hear, and a Voice : " We won't have Sullivan," which gave rise to a scene of considerable disorder, mingled with loud cries of " Put out Sullivan," and hisses.) When silence was again partially restored The O'Donoghue proceeded—l refuse to believe that that re mark which has just been made represents the feeling of the people here. (Applause, hisses, and cries of " No, no.") Not being a citizen of Dublin, I did not expect to be called upon to take so promi nent a position at this meeting as to move the first resolution. (Voice—" More power to you.") When I read of what passed at the meeting of the cor poration in the City Hall on last Monday—(yells of disapprobation)-1 immediately wrote to my esteemed friend Mr. Sullivan— The remainder of the sentence was lost in a storm of frantic yells. A scene of the wildest disorder then ensued, and the fierce multitude who thronged the hall and platform burst from the slender bonds of decorum which had hitherto restrained them. The members of the . Fenian Brotherhood, to whom, as it appeared, Mr. Sullivan and the Nation are obnoxious, uttered groans and cries of disapproba tion from the various positions which they occupied in the building, and all attempts to reduce them to order were vain. Ru>hes were made from every part of the hall by the partisans of either party, and blows were given and returned freely. The plat form was stormed by a large number of the roughest and moat blackguard-looking fellows we have ever seen, and, notwithstanding the resistance of those stationed thereon, they succeeded in escalading it and obtaining a partial footing, which they gradu ally improved until it was entirely irl their posses sion. Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Gill, The O'Donoghue, and others, beat a hasty retreat from the platform on which hut a few minutes before they had stood the demigods of the assembly. Appeals were made in vain to the patriotism of the mob by their would be leaders; one of the priests stood with head bared and uplifted hands calling for order; the mem bers of the committee and a member of the better conducted exerted their personal and physical in fluence to quell the storm, but all to no effect. Words were unheard or unheeded, and the passions which had been excited were rather inflamed by the efforts made to calm them. In one quarter of an hour from the time the first speaker addressed the assembly, the meeting, which had been an- Jounced with such a flourish of trumpets, and for which such great preparations had been made, was over, and a tumultuous riot filled the place. For nearly twc hours the outrageous conduct we have attempted to describe continued uninterruptedly, and the wonder is that no serious injury to any per son occurred, or was reported to us.—Dublin Ex. press. Another Scene in the Belfast Town Council. Mr. John Rea has been the hero of another scene in the Belfast Town Council. Mr. Rea, it will be recollected, was recently convicted on a criminal information of charging the Mayor of Belfast with "conspiracy" and "perjury," in connection with the interminable local broil which has arisen out of some acts committed years since by the majority of the Council—acts always impeached by Mr. Rea in the broadest terms. At the last meeting of the Council the subjoined resolution came on for discussion :—" That the bill prepared to carry into effect the award in the case of the Belfast Borough Arbitration, as altered by the fiat of the Right Hon. E. Cardwell be, and the same is, hereby adopted by the Council." The fol lowing extract from a report of six columns long, all of the same character, will give an idea of what a plague Mr. Rea must be to the Town Council The Mayor—Again I order you to sit down. Mr. Rea (shaking his fist in the Mayor's face, and frothing at the mouth)—You have infamously en deavoured to screen your co-conspirators from the inevitable justice. Mr. M.Getigh—Who is he talk ing about? A Voice—Call him out, the ruffian. Mr. Rea—l call the members to order while—The Mayor—l call upon you to sit down. Mr. Rea—l won't sit down, I tell you to your teeth (thumping the table and stamping on the floor). The Mayor —You must. I order you. Mr. Rea—You will drag me from the room and compel me to submit ere I do so to your order. Here a frightful scene of confusion took place. Chairs were pushed out, books and papers scattered, and everyone shouted something. Mr. Ilea bellowed till his voice was heard above the deafening Babel. He stamped, and shook his fists, and roared out ruffiln," per jurer,'suborner,' and such epithets. It was ut terly impossibte to catch a consecutive sentence. The densely-packed crowd swayed and pushed about, and the efforts of each person to get a good view increased the confusion_ Mr. Rea shouting as loud as he possibly coald—l charge you with corruptly endeavouring to protect Alderman Lindsay, he being an accused felon, and a co conspirator of your own, with Sir Hugh Cairns, and Mr. Whiteside, and others. (Great cheering.) The scene at this point was indescribable, every member rising to his feet, and the gentlemen who are not in the habit of expressing their opinions further than by saying 'scandalous,' shocking,' ' vote,' and 'sit down, Rea,' shouting lustily, while the Mayor stood up to obtain a lacaring and put the resolution to the meeting. Mr. Rea (in a thundering voice) —Mayor of Belfast as you are, and violating your oath of office, I defy you. Mr. John Hammitt here appeared to be in an awful state of excitement. We observed him engaged at the side of the hall where Mr. Rea sits, in pulling hack Mr. Lindsay, who had a walking stick in his end pressing him down on a choir." SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMES.—Mr. Locke King is the Nemesis of what Mr. O'Connell used to call Whig brutality. The Liberals were wont to bear lather hard on the bi gotry of their antagonists, on their idolatry of in stitutions, phrases, names, creeds, and forms. So, in revenge far this excess of intellectual zeal, ?several , members of the Whig party are working out a penal servitude in the drudgery and chains of political dogmatism. There is no reason why Mr. Locke King should not indulge in Parliamentary enter prises of the most injurious or the Most innocent character ; but he always reappears with the familar old fetter clanking about his legs, the old log at his heels, and the old number on his uniform. For aught we know, he may change the figure some day, just for change's sake, and to delude novices into the idea that it is a new invention, but no doubt it will be substantially the same ticket. His one article of faith on this point is the reduction of the county to the level of the borough franchise. This would be in effect to abolish the county consti tuencies, and to have nothing but boroughs, with every possible irregularity and anomaly of popula tions, boundaries, territories, and other conditions. Mr. Locke King, however, leaves all this confusion to the future. He has taken his stand on the first step. Subscribe yourself a ten-pounder, and that is enough for him. But year after year, year after year, he stands and pleads in vain. A phantom of success is always floating before his eyes. As he de ceives, so is he deceived in return, and every session renews the reciprocal imposture. His share in the deception is this. He knows well enough that every county member, and every borough member too, would rather not tell the ten-pounders anywhere chat they are not fit to have a vote, not only because it is a gratuitous insult, but also because it is not really true. No doubt the great majority of the ten-pounders in the county are quite as well qualified to decide on the merits of a candidate as the great majority of the ten-pounders in the boroughs. Indeed, a rental of ten pounds a year most certainiy represents a better income, a better social position, and, so far, a better class of men, in villages and small towns than in our existing boroughs. So it is not only the wish to be popular but a regard for abstract truth, that compels a good many men of the safest opinions and most Conser vative bias to vote with Mr. Locke King. Such is his share in the performance. That of his victims is not very dissimilar. They know perfectly well that the division will produce no result ; that the proceeding is as wholly unpractical as the answer to a question in an examination school. They know that the county franchise will not be reduced to £lO without necessary re adjustments not included in the bill, and that the enormous difficulties that would arise out of such an event will not occur in our time at least. So they give Mr. Locke King the worthless vote he asks for, because it is worthless. As to Mr. Locke King, it is useless to appeal to him, and ask him to desist from a performance which he considers his stepping stone to an honourable immortality. One might as well ask a Fakir to cut his nai,s, or to draw out from his ribs the hook by which he has been suspen led 20 years. But to the devotees of the sect perhaps a re monstrance may be addressed. For this purpose we will avail ourselves of the great lights of the age. The latest conclusion of social philosophy is to proscribe indiscriminate alms-giving. You must not give a man a halfpeney simply because he takes stand on the pavementand chooses to ask for it. A late enlightened and most kindhearted prelate used to make the very unpharisaical boast that he had never given a halfpenny to a street beggar. So we ask, " Why give worthless votes to Mr. Locke King simply be cause he asks for them P" According to annual cus tom, he delivers himself of an appeal to the benevo lent in behalf of the unrepresented county ten poun ders. We are expressing a simple fact when we say we never yet saw or heard of a county ten pounder who wanted a vote, and that we never yet met with a gentleman who wanted, as a separate measure, on public grounds not personal to himself, to enfran chise the ten pounders in his own county. Of course we have met with people who wanted a lower fran chise generally, and a good deal besides, but that is a very different thing from a special and serious de cision in favour of enfranchising county ten pounders. We disbelieve in the very existence of a real party for Mr, Locke King's measure as it stands. Such party as there is votes for it simply because they may as well vote for it; they will do neither harm nor good by so doing ; the measure is nothing, and the vote for it is nothing. But they do harm, for they establish a fashion of frivolity and insincerity. The trimmers in Pagan antiquity offered incense to idols, saying to themselves ; and to one another in private, that the idol was nothing and the worship nothing, and therefore they had done nothing. This is precisely what the trimmers who wish to keep in with everybody do to Mr. Locke King's measure. They pat on a grave face, listen with decorous attention to the eloquent hierarch as he descants on the virtues of his idol and repeats its high.. sounding titles; they then take the censer, throw in a few grains of incense, wave the fragrant homage, perform a slight genuflecxion, and are glad to escape into the open air and forget all about it. In pure kindness to the many most respectable gentlemen who give their annual votes for this proposal, we should be very glad to believe that the proposal had the least solidity in it as stands. That it may be advisable at some not very distant day to revise the whole system, and even, in the interim, to make now and then a par tial improvement, we understand and believe ; but we do not understand an insulated alteration which would destroy the balance of the existing system. When an outward-bound ship finds itself encoun tering heavy weather in the Bay of Biscay the crew may make the discovery that the cargo might have been better stowed, but that will not be the time either to put things all right or to make just one great change and no more. Our Representative system is one of many equipoises. We set one thing against another. We repre!ent a good deal besides men as Nature made them ; or rather to correct ourselves, as Nature did not make them, for Nature has not made all the same, or all equal. We represent in the House of Com mons all that makes the country—numbers, MOH= Bence, education, property, rank, institutions, and even traditions. We, represent also an empire which surrounds the globe, which occupies large territories in five continents, and has a great pelt to perform in the history of the world. All this is not to be represented by delegates from so many ten pound householders. A pound of flesh cut from Antonio's breast, even if it had been multiplied a hundred times, would not have made another Antonio, nor is this empire a mere aggregate of several million ten-pound householders. Were it that, it would soon find itself in the predicament of an army which was all rank and file. But that is not our social constitution. It is not the constitution of a single neighbourhood, a single town, a single vil lage in these islands. A representative Legislature must be harmonised to the actual state of the coun try and to its natural sentiment. Any plan of Par liamentary reform which fails of this harmony is as pure an imposture as the composition of a baboon's head and arms with the tail of a fish, once passed off as a mermaid in our curiosity shops. The thing cannot be. The first comparative anatomist will tell you it is impossible, but not more impossible than an American or any other Democratic Legislature sewed upon the British people and empire. DAILY NEWS.—The time has gone by for dis cussing the propriety of some new Court of Criminal Appeal. The trials of Smethurst, M'Lachlan, Wright, and Townley tartish conclusive proof that the appeal upon questions of law which' is now allowed is not sufficient. In every one of these cases there has been substantially an appeal upon the facts. The Home Secretary has been compelled, often sorely against his will, to sit as a judge of ap peal, and to confirm or overrule the decision at which the judge and the jury who tried the case had already arrived. In short, an appeal as to the facts now exists. The Home Secretary is the pre siding judge, and the Home-office is the place where it assembles. It is vain to ignore its existence. Such a court is a necessity. A civilised country can no more dispense with such a jurisdiction than it can dispense with the jurisdiction in equity. Judges and juries are confessedly fallible. Ample provision is made for reviewing the conclusions at which they may arrive in cases of contract and in actions for civil injuries. It is simply absurd to suppose that life and death, liberty and servitude, are not quite as im portant as unpaid bills or a tainted character. And it is obvious, therefore, th at t h e same principle. upon which the right of appeal rests in the former case may be used with additional force to justify it iu the other. The only question now i s as to t h e best form in which an appeal in criminal cases can be allowed. The bill introduced by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, which now awaits the second reading, is an attempt to supply the required court. The c hief objections agai nst the anorn±lous jurisdiction which is exercised by cised upon no dtehfienilite° n pr e i - n o e ffi i p c l e e t r h e a , that t it is it e x i s e r e c x i seerd in secret, and that the Home Secretary is not com petent to act as a judge of appeal. To try any man for his life, or even to try the right to any property, before such a tribunal, would not be tolerated for an instant. But society has its rights as well as the accused person, and the one is entitled to as much protection as the other. As thinas now stand, however, whilst the chances of escape for the i c s rim al i m n o a s l t ar i e g a n t or a ed m . ax N im o u sv m s , Sir rhpe F. Kelly's of Bill s does certainly provide fo r some of the defects of the pre sent system. Under its provisions, upon the certi ficate of a barrister that the case deserves further i nvestigation, an applicati on may b e ma de to any o f the C our t s of Westminster -h a ll, or to three judges of the Courtof Criminal Appeal---who may sit at any . time of the year. The object of this appliati, may be either to set aside the verdict, or to order new trial. The result, if successful, in the first be ll stance . would be to obtain a rule nisi, discussed before the full Court of Criminal Appeav; The . result of that discussion would be, either the reject the appeal, or io order a new trial upon oe whole, or some particular facts. It is intended, ~,I course,. that this Court of Cl'iminal Appeal sil li t 7, have jurisdiction even to revers:9 the verdict, an. _, give such judgment as may seem expedient. l'i.e; amongst other things it would have uoNver to ()g at a new . trial on any collateral question, sa ell i y u i l oast of insanity. These may be very useful ' i. 17, ,B,slith -which would i but they do not meet the real difficulty. No', loci° standing the decision of such a court the n he Secretary ittould still possess the power whic ti .. now pussases to grant a pardon or to c oranin'', i sentence . of death into penal servitude for life. "la 18 the power of which the Home Secretary 8,7.13°11,;v be deprived, but as to which the bill of Sir T. -0 0 7 i, is ominously silent. The Home Secretary ough!, be furnished with a statutory answer to Close I°l , portunate friends of convicts who besiege the 11°1 % office and clamorously irtist upon mercy. Ne7 l3 ; ,, g ,: e r to be able to say there is no power in any Mi n L o , of State to advise the Sovereign to grant a P aris i„; or to overrule the verdict of a L jory and the deelsii., . c erts e r_ of a . judge. Every case must be referred to eminent men, who are bound to consider it in op If court, and to take evidence with respect to it t he there be any facts which can throw let tile ° ° guilt or innocence of the convicted mao , laid before that tribunal. light upon te The Fire and Loss of Three Loe). Yesterday Mr. Wm. Payhe, coroner of Leil a ' and Southwark, opened an inquest in the board NO of St. George's Workhouse, Mint-street, Borough' on the bodies of Charles Avery, Th o mas Neate. *l4 Fred. Fervor, who were burnt to death in t he 6 ' , that occurred on Saturday morning on the preteiE'ee belonging to Mrs. Barnes, lodging-house keeper.. Mary Barnes said that she rented the house which the deceased met with their deaths. It w ee : lodging-house. She knew the deceased, but e/I. ' one by name. They were all lodgers. Abo ut three o'clock on Saturday morning she waa awoke hi noise. She opened the door, when some one ale out, "For God's sake, Mrs Barnes, come &vat; stairs, for the house is on fire." She ran down, g ° out at the back, and passed through the next h eo ;. The house was closed about 10 minutes and .be Three men were sleeping in the kitchen, ,_:d. "deputy" tried to get them to go upstair s to be but was unable, and witness went to them , ari d ° ha l left and proceeded to their sleeping room. She -be some wet sheets hanging in the parlour, but e never said the lire had broken, nor did she ev er that a spark had fallen from a candle among sera6 t . o linen. The gas was completely turned off at the n' e. before she went to bed. She believed the fire e era ; menced in the front parlour, but from what eal6 o f she did not know. She never raked the fir es the stoves, for fear any of the hot cinders mig ht 1 through the cracks in the hearths. The depot Y Br; ways had the key of the front room, but t here tie no necessity for his coming down stairs afte r went to bed. She had been insured for 10 yea re ' tbe Toomas Ward said that he was the deputY dt house. He turned the gas off at the main a nd We o r to bed about half-past 12 o'clock. He went ou t some beer about 10 minutes to 12. There were tbr`to persons in the kitchen. He asked them to go etche d bed, and they did so soon afterwards. 11e feteuirbe a basket of clothes into the kitchen, but it w ee „ . p . wrong one, and it was taken back again, and °"1 10 wards carried up stairs. Witness slept O n t o , same floor as the three deceased men. ' 0 of the deceased cried out, " For God's sake, 11° ; get up, the house is on fire." That person sc" t ,,.' however, unable to get out, and he was burnt : death. Witness ran down to the first floor A in tl e/i ; and jumped out at the back. There were fife P e l l sons sleeping in the same room as witness. He c°ll ,l c not tell how the fire began. The deceased teb'e, their clothes off before they went to bed, a n d 118 . 0 1 lieved that they stopped in the room to dress, thereby got suffocated. lAA Joseph Hubbard said that he slept in the `); „ room adjoining the one in which the deceased 10 Witness tried to get down, but was unable, O d i n .. returned to his own room, and jumped out of ,„0 dow. He broke his fall by laying hold of °°'.. spikes. ie of Benjamin Prophet said that he lodged in the houses opposite that of Mrs. Barnes. 1 " e or got home about 12 o'clock. He was in the first fl° t he front. His wife being ill he was standing it the A" window, when he noticed a light in the room 01 ground floor and smock issuing through the O in the shutters. n After some further evidence, the jury re ttirj verdict of accidental death. COUNTRY MARKETS. LEEDS—TUESDAY. A the Holders of wheat will not give way in price , an. bug" buyers cannot purchase on their own terms very little drather ness was done. Barley as More. Beans slow, ai cheaper. Oats and other articles brought late rata. ° There was a fair attendance both LIVERPOOL—TUESDAY of town dealer bet ter country millers at market to-day. Wheat met with a t wen' , trade, at late rates. Flour difficult to more, end 111 04.: of buyers. Oats and oatmeal at late quotations. ;001" beans, and peas met a dull sale. Vely little bus Indian corn. SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY- mg t ?ti e r There was a fair show of grain to-day. and ~- , o t bri l- ' day's rates were supported, but the trade WO - Other articles continue quite as dear. od to IS 9 °j 03 Red wheat, per: load of 3 imperial bushels.. • 15s to ' 2° ' a White l9 Od i s s 0 11 9 ~16s Od t° 190 P New red t .178 Da to 178 63 New white „ 19 : 55 6Cit° 44' °CI Beaus ), ~ 40s Od t ° 3 i s 04 Peas, per qr .. .. 2 9 s od to 388 03 Grinding barley, per qr .. 34s Od to 0 Malting ditto, „ 19s O. Oats 99 Flour, is 4d to is 8d per 14 lb. MARKET HARBOROUGH—TuES DA 6 0 ston es White wheat, 42s to 44s ; red, 38s to 42s per 2 85 285 to 330 * Malting barley at 34s to 37s per qr. ; grinding? wza per per 30 st. Oats, old, 24s to 270 ; new , 20s to 41 " at. ; beans,:36s to 42s per qr. u. 0. d, i s 0 10 ° t() ° Oatmeal.... .. oto 0 Beans.. ..... 0 to" Bere ......... oto,o 0 Rapeseed •• .• , 4 0 to ,'; q 0 Bakers' flour .' 0 to Indian corn .. -27 TRIDA.Y. DUBLIN. a. d. s. d. Wheat, white 24 0 to 26 6 Do., red 2l 6 to 24 0 Do., new 0 to 0 Barley Oats Do., black — 0 to 0 ---...•mm••••••. , rm • d [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Ointment 511 esl o/ Great Relief.—All gouty and rheumatic aflectionat 1001 and wasting of the limbs, stiff joints and contract.° diligc l/ A can be treated with the certainty of success by the it I '7, friction of this ointment upon the affected part t", 1100;.; been patiently fomented with warm brine. s tries a /- pills should be taken by the sufferer who fairlY tr r i ota Sbe treatment, because they purify the blood, in/ l e s act' „. $ll stomach, regulate the liver, stimulate the kidnel mild aperients on the bowels and as tonics on thly's r e f ; In akin diseases and glandular cotnplaiuts, 14°11°-ir medies are earnestly recommended on account of the o 0:0 yet effective action, when a long train of social° surrounds its victim. , Births. ,ife of Thomas BINNE m — a o s ll ß t i h nn e e2y2,dEinscist.;,oaftaBB,oTnh. e Grove, Lee , tiler- , COOTE.—On the 22d inst., at Pinner, the , 8 sv , f , o f Coe Robert Coote, R.N. of a daughter. ii r 000 CURETON.—On the 21st inst., at 17, Don'ts-Yard' minster, Mrs. Cureton, of a daughter. Tialicjhr LORD.—On the 22d inst., at St. Johdo Lodg e . o f t- . worth-common, the wife of James Lord, B8(1.' Inner Temple, of a son. Marriages. f 0 0 tb ; DUNCAN-PAcE.-On the 23d inst., at St. Dit i : 6 0 0 ° Martyr, London-bride Edward Duncan. B. t, citY, the late E Duncan, Esq., of 3, Leadenhall-sttee 0f359 to Adelaide Mary, third daughter of lleury race' King-street, Cheapstde. , elLv B/ tin 3 , n o WITTS—TERRY.—On the 20th inst at St!,,,j, 4. 8-- Kensington, G. F. Watts, Esq., iO Alias .. Terry. e A A n sil tEooLEunEct Southampton-street, t. :0 0 :IN : BIE 0 n the Mrs. A° - , D 22 e d at i h us s t .. , ", of pton - -street, Fitzroy-square, age d 7 ' l ' We , t he b rer °3'i DowagerEono:iwpsi....._ EncOo. Carleton, il i t eyts h hteno e eonnu 2 ,2, n l oEa s ttge t hs seq i dsin:sltat4geaadtt Hereford,722 Ci s g r o e 8: a s •1 1 t rs lBCes RE itnh i ß n geE . t HE * MYNN Escr:aogOnendt h t 6 h e : 2 2 1 2 5 : i n il : s t t . ~ , a t a t 4 4, r e ß e k r uhnas: ck v - b ui s e ; Pe e t : 14 :: Reid e __ :. n the 221 inst., at Sidon!), SMYTH —0 riuyhth, Esq., of The Fence, Cheshire, t movuritivo ,o, g t Dragoons, and one of the last of the _, to t the Rug: C b a y : capture of S ' eringapatain in 1799, aged 96.. 41, I) TowNSEND.—On the 22d inst 2 _ at Ilillinortin alTrhyomßarisgTedoewwneheinedh:.:qt:lleaerFdiPt°t7:°ss:::reivrlit'!ll:! LI~AfAo~Na 10. London : Prir,Zd and Prbitshed by Strand, NO. 112, St rand, Printer, at TOE SUin P ' t he -I COP' rand, the Precinct of the riavo, Idlesex,—wedliefiday, February:24, 3.lti 1